Gitlab is not comparable to Github at all. Gitlab is just about hosting git projects that's all. It's not community driven at all.
We were recently evaluating it, and found that basic needs like code reviews are not covered. And their hiding of LDAP Integration (luckily the extended community stepped in and duplicated their module) is a joke.
1: https://gitlab.com/help/user/project/merge_requests/merge_re...
2: https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/development/code_review.html
3: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/administration/auth/ldap-ee.html
And I forgot about squashing :)
All I say: it is expected. Gitlab is capable, just not in all editions
I'm not (only) trying to be pedantic here -- I'm just pointing out the loaded language. In both business models and product recommendations, people use the word "comparable" to justify their conclusions, rather than to explain their comparisons themselves.
It is all about framing a decision for a particular use case at a particular price point.
I guess you could say I'm the kind of person that can't help but notice that modern communication seems to be fraught with this pattern: let's state our conclusions without much justification and then choose our language minimize the "rationality" of alternatives. I think we can do better, as a community.
I get your point though. The form and structure of the language used, consciously of subconsciously, often conveys quite a bit more information than the words themselves impart. Sometimes this is meant to communicate or subconsciously sway the reader, sometimes it's leakage of the writer's mental state.
Not only can you do community-driven project development with Gitlab but the core product itself is also open source and community participation is encouraged. See: